A. Nony Mouse wrote:Albanach - I think that's entirely consistent with what Nebby said initially - that the definition is broad and *statutory.* Of course Congress can change that if they want. I think the whole point originally was that the courts/DOE couldn't reduce the protections. No one has said that Congress couldn't decide to axe it. (So short version: the ABA lawsuit isn't a big deal for the vast majority of people relying on PSLF, but Congress fucking with it is.)

Earlskies, I guess this is a little late now, but I was going to say that for people looking at the T14 and wanting PI, looking at schools' LRAPs is probably much more important than PSLF per se, since there are LRAP programs that don't have anything to do with PSLF/schools that commit to supporting LRAP if PSLF is abolished. (I say T14 because I think not many other schools have LRAPs you could rely on, frankly, so people in other circumstances need to weigh the risks of PSLF more carefully.)

Also it sounds to me like you're heading in the non-biglaw/pure dedication direction in which biglaw isn't necessarily that helpful, but someone like Nebby will be better qualified to speak to that.

(LTM, I agree that often people who head in this direction have a lot of financial support, but don't blame the messengers for the way hiring works. I'm in fed gov so there are plenty of people with biglaw backgrounds but I've been in a number of contexts where "I did biglaw for the money" isn't going to go over well. That's just reality. Also, finally, saying "just do biglaw to pay it off" also reflects a T14/"I got biglaw privilege" - it's not a route available to everyone.)

Also Nony I feel even a top student with a resume that shows only dedicated PI work will have a hard time getting a biglaw job. It's not impossible but it's a huge red flag to interviewers.

Oh, that, too. Trying to play BOTH SIDES is going to be hard because the experience that makes you valuable to one is going to be a red flag to the other. (Also, if I'm a legal services type org that pays say even $60-70k, would I believe that a third-year associate who has to be making over $200k be able to hack the pay cut for my job?)

LurkerTurnedMember wrote: With so much economic inequality now and the increased price of law school, we should all agree, for the sake of equity, that remaining "pure" just means you were financially privileged. Period. If you have two small children and a mortgage, car payments, etc, or just a ton of loans that you can't handle having loom over you for 120 payments, especially in this climate, then taking a biglaw job shouldn't be seen as a negative.

This is such a dumb and ignorant opinion. Did you recently go fishing and that's why red herrings are on your mind?

PSLF and LRAPs provide people with the ability to pursue a public interest career regardless of whether they are financially privileged. That's kinda the entire point of both programs.

Furthermore, I have no idea why you're talking about children, a mortgage, car payments etc. Do you think only nontraditional students go to law school or something? You are describing a very small subset of people. The vast majority of young lawyers do not have children, a mortgage, or car payments.

You're so ignorant. 120 payments is a long time. And even students in their 20s graduating from law school will likely start a family, have kids, want to buy a house, etc. Are you that short sighted that you can't see life in two, four, ten years from now? And not all students in law school are rich or come from well off backgrounds. They have family (brothers, sisters, parents who need help) to worry about, even if they themselves are lawyers. Just cause you're a spoiled little single rich kid who doesn't need to worry about anything but themselves or the present moment, Becky, doesn't mean the rest of the young law community is, too.

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:With so much economic inequality now and the increased price of law school, we should all agree, for the sake of equity, that remaining "pure" just means you were financially privileged. Period. If you have two small children and a mortgage, car payments, etc, or just a ton of loans that you can't handle having loom over you for 120 payments, especially in this climate, then taking a biglaw job shouldn't be seen as a negative.

I'm privileged because I turned down big law to pursue public interest work? On what planet does that make any sense? Where was my supposed privilege when I was living in a homeless shelter, or out of my car? Where was it when I had to play harmonica in the subway for change because I hadn't eaten that day?

Biglaw was my ticket to the upper middle class, after many many years of struggling. I turned it down to pursue public interest work -- one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make. Don't fucking tell me it came from a place of privilege.

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:With so much economic inequality now and the increased price of law school, we should all agree, for the sake of equity, that remaining "pure" just means you were financially privileged. Period. If you have two small children and a mortgage, car payments, etc, or just a ton of loans that you can't handle having loom over you for 120 payments, especially in this climate, then taking a biglaw job shouldn't be seen as a negative.

I'm privileged because I turned down big law to pursue public interest work? On what planet does that make any sense? Where was my supposed privilege when I was living in a homeless shelter, or out of my car? Where was it when I had to play harmonica in the subway for change because I hadn't eaten that day?

Biglaw was my ticket to the upper middle class, after many many years of struggling. I turned it down to pursue public interest work -- one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make. Don't fucking tell me it came from a place of privilege.

Point taken. But there are a large amount of people who have other financial obligations that prevent them from taking on public interest work right away. I think it would be unfair to tell an applicant that they aren't "with the cause" or didn't stay "pure" because the applicant had a family member with cancer who didn't have insurance, or a family to take care of, or something where living off of the pub interest salary wasn't financially feasible. In that sense, it would be ignoring someone's economic plight and pretending it was merely a choice. And it's especially hurtful to have someone who also came from a disadvantaged background throw it in your face and put you down for your own economic and familial disadvantages.

LurkerTurnedMember wrote: With so much economic inequality now and the increased price of law school, we should all agree, for the sake of equity, that remaining "pure" just means you were financially privileged. Period. If you have two small children and a mortgage, car payments, etc, or just a ton of loans that you can't handle having loom over you for 120 payments, especially in this climate, then taking a biglaw job shouldn't be seen as a negative.

This is such a dumb and ignorant opinion. Did you recently go fishing and that's why red herrings are on your mind?

PSLF and LRAPs provide people with the ability to pursue a public interest career regardless of whether they are financially privileged. That's kinda the entire point of both programs.

Furthermore, I have no idea why you're talking about children, a mortgage, car payments etc. Do you think only nontraditional students go to law school or something? You are describing a very small subset of people. The vast majority of young lawyers do not have children, a mortgage, or car payments.

You're so ignorant. 120 payments is a long time. And even students in their 20s graduating from law school will likely start a family, have kids, want to buy a house, etc. Are you that short sighted that you can't see life in two, four, ten years from now? And not all students in law school are rich or come from well off backgrounds. They have family (brothers, sisters, parents who need help) to worry about, even if they themselves are lawyers. Just cause you're a spoiled little single rich kid who doesn't need to worry about anything but themselves or the present moment, Becky, doesn't mean the rest of the young law community is, too.

LJL. You're such a clown. I found the bolded particularly amusing considering the fact that I'm a first generation college grad that debt serviced my law school education and rely own LRAP/PSLF to make ends meet as a PI attorney.

I honestly have no idea what your endgame is here other than to keep digging a hole. You continue to demonstrate ignorance at every turn. You have no idea how PSLF/LRAP works or how it can allow people to both start a family and pursue public interest. You have no idea how PI/govt hiring works. You keep ignoring the fact that BigLaw is averse to hiring people with a PI background. I still have no idea why you keep pushing a false dichotomy between PI and biglaw as if the former is servitude to debt and/or classist and the latter is the only option.

Lastly, you appear to suffer from the fallacy where one equivocates their lived experiences with a universalized maxim. Just because you lack the basic mental faculties necessary to understand how thousands of people live fulfilling lives on PSLF/LRAP, doesn't mean it is impossible.

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:Point taken. But there are a large amount of people who have other financial obligations that prevent them from taking on public interest work right away. I think it would be unfair to tell an applicant that they aren't "with the cause" or didn't stay "pure" because the applicant had a family member with cancer who didn't have insurance, or a family to take care of, or something where living off of the pub interest salary wasn't financially feasible. In that sense, it would be ignoring someone's economic plight and pretending it was merely a choice. And it's especially hurtful to have someone who also came from a disadvantaged background throw it in your face and put you down for your own economic and familial disadvantages.

What in the world are you even going on about? Are you seriously this upset that some PI organizations prefer people with demonstrated commitment to an issue?

"I think it's a bummer that the local ACLU branch prefers candidates with experience in civil rights and a commitment to civil rights. Why do they discriminate against that poor antitrust associate at Skadden who really liked the movie Salem!!!!!!!!!!!??????"

Last edited by Nebby on Wed May 31, 2017 11:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

LurkerTurnedMember wrote: With so much economic inequality now and the increased price of law school, we should all agree, for the sake of equity, that remaining "pure" just means you were financially privileged. Period. If you have two small children and a mortgage, car payments, etc, or just a ton of loans that you can't handle having loom over you for 120 payments, especially in this climate, then taking a biglaw job shouldn't be seen as a negative.

This is such a dumb and ignorant opinion. Did you recently go fishing and that's why red herrings are on your mind?

PSLF and LRAPs provide people with the ability to pursue a public interest career regardless of whether they are financially privileged. That's kinda the entire point of both programs.

Furthermore, I have no idea why you're talking about children, a mortgage, car payments etc. Do you think only nontraditional students go to law school or something? You are describing a very small subset of people. The vast majority of young lawyers do not have children, a mortgage, or car payments.

You're so ignorant. 120 payments is a long time. And even students in their 20s graduating from law school will likely start a family, have kids, want to buy a house, etc. Are you that short sighted that you can't see life in two, four, ten years from now? And not all students in law school are rich or come from well off backgrounds. They have family (brothers, sisters, parents who need help) to worry about, even if they themselves are lawyers. Just cause you're a spoiled little single rich kid who doesn't need to worry about anything but themselves or the present moment, Becky, doesn't mean the rest of the young law community is, too.

LJL. You're such a clown. I found the bolded particularly amusing considering the fact that I'm a first generation college grad that debt serviced my law school education and rely own LRAP/PSLF to make ends meet as a PI attorney.

I honestly have no idea what your endgame is here other than to keep digging a hole. You continue to demonstrate ignorance at every turn. You have no idea how PSLF/LRAP works or how it can allow people to both start a family and pursue public interest. You have no idea how PI/govt hiring works. You keep ignoring the fact that BigLaw is averse to hiring people with a PI background. I still have no idea why you keep pushing a false dichotomy between PI and biglaw as if the former is servitude to debt and/or classist and the latter is the only option.

Lastly, you appear to suffer from the fallacy where one equivocates their lived experiences with a universalized maxim. Just because you lack the basic mental faculties necessary to understand how thousands of people live fulfilling lives on PSLF/LRAP, doesn't mean it is impossible.

Didn't say it was the only option. I presented it as an option. I understand how hiring works. My comments were just criticisms of it. And my comments on the PSLF/LRAP basically presented a different perspective, how it affects a lot of students who don't have that assumed life trajectory, i.e. mid 20s, no family to worry about just their own financial needs, etc. Sorry I contributed to the conversation. I'll back out now.

Don't be sorry for your contribution. There's nothing wrong with contributing. My only issue was that you are critiquing the hiring practices of some PI organizations, and in an effort to support your critique you draw on generalized grievances that can be applied to so many situations that it becomes meaningless.

Yes, some people have life events that creates financial hardship that requires them to do things they otherwise wouldn't do. That is not a valid critique of a particular preference for hiring at a PI organization, however. That's just life. It is unfair and shit happens.

LurkerTurnedMember wrote:With so much economic inequality now and the increased price of law school, we should all agree, for the sake of equity, that remaining "pure" just means you were financially privileged. Period. If you have two small children and a mortgage, car payments, etc, or just a ton of loans that you can't handle having loom over you for 120 payments, especially in this climate, then taking a biglaw job shouldn't be seen as a negative.

I'm privileged because I turned down big law to pursue public interest work? On what planet does that make any sense? Where was my supposed privilege when I was living in a homeless shelter, or out of my car? Where was it when I had to play harmonica in the subway for change because I hadn't eaten that day?

Biglaw was my ticket to the upper middle class, after many many years of struggling. I turned it down to pursue public interest work -- one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make. Don't fucking tell me it came from a place of privilege.

Point taken. But there are a large amount of people who have other financial obligations that prevent them from taking on public interest work right away. I think it would be unfair to tell an applicant that they aren't "with the cause" or didn't stay "pure" because the applicant had a family member with cancer who didn't have insurance, or a family to take care of, or something where living off of the pub interest salary wasn't financially feasible. In that sense, it would be ignoring someone's economic plight and pretending it was merely a choice. And it's especially hurtful to have someone who also came from a disadvantaged background throw it in your face and put you down for your own economic and familial disadvantages.

I mean, it doesn't really matter whether it's fair or not, if it's what someone aiming for PI has to deal with. You thinking something is unfair isn't going to change the hiring practices that OP will need to understand when making decisions about career and debt. No one here is endorsing these practices as fair (or unfair). When you're hiring people you can take this all into account, but there's not much point railing against it otherwise.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Earlskies, I guess this is a little late now, but I was going to say that for people looking at the T14 and wanting PI, looking at schools' LRAPs is probably much more important than PSLF per se, since there are LRAP programs that don't have anything to do with PSLF/schools that commit to supporting LRAP if PSLF is abolished. (I say T14 because I think not many other schools have LRAPs you could rely on, frankly, so people in other circumstances need to weigh the risks of PSLF more carefully.)

Also it sounds to me like you're heading in the non-biglaw/pure dedication direction in which biglaw isn't necessarily that helpful, but someone like Nebby will be better qualified to speak to that.

You're correct in regards to my direction. I'd certainly rather do this work after graduation rather than biglaw to pay loans loans aggressively. And I'm confident Michigan's LRAP will allow me that opportunity.

But does biglaw preclude you from getting PI positions or just make it more difficult? I only ask so that all my options are laid out in front of me completely. (I know this is moving the conversation outside the initial intent of the thread, so thank you for bearing with me.)

I get more and more reluctant to say that anything absolutely precludes you from doing anything. Nebby will know more about the environmental stuff. I know there are law firms where if you work there, good luck ever getting work with a labor union/workers' rights organization. But a lot of the time it will depend on the organization and what experience you get and how to spin it.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I get more and more reluctant to say that anything absolutely precludes you from doing anything. Nebby will know more about the environmental stuff. I know there are law firms where if you work there, good luck ever getting work with a labor union/workers' rights organization. But a lot of the time it will depend on the organization and what experience you get and how to spin it.

Nebby wrote:

Any advice specific to environmental organizations would be appreciated. Thanks!

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I get more and more reluctant to say that anything absolutely precludes you from doing anything. Nebby will know more about the environmental stuff. I know there are law firms where if you work there, good luck ever getting work with a labor union/workers' rights organization. But a lot of the time it will depend on the organization and what experience you get and how to spin it.

Nebby wrote:

Any advice specific to environmental organizations would be appreciated. Thanks!

Working in biglaw does not preclude you from an environmental nonprofit--at least not the greenchip* enviros like NRDC, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, ELPC, SELC, etc. However, you'd need to be lateraling from a firm's enviro practice and you'd also need other experience on your resume to indicate dedication to nonprofit work. I would say about 75% of attorneys at the greenchip orgs start out doing that kind of work (nonprofit) and about 25% come from biglaw.

I am not experienced enough with state-based, local organizations. However, those organizations are so small (usually 1 to 5 attorneys) and they rarely hire entry-level attorneys.

I've given up on worrying about bills at this particular stage of proceedings because it's just way too early. It's not even an existing bill but a bill they're planning to propose. I have too much "proposed bill fatigue" b/c my FB friends are always posting outrage about "proposed bills" that don't have a snowball's chance in hell at passing.

Clearly there are people interested in gutting/capping student loan protections so sure, it's something to have some concern about and pay attention to. But I don't have the energy to worry about it at this point.

estefanchanning wrote:In the off chance that PROSPER passes, it must contain a grandfather provision, no? Detrimental reliance and all...

I guess my question is, can Congress bypass contract law and eliminate PSLF even for current enrollees?

Probably not. The terms and conditions of our loans contained PSLF.

Yeah, this is the key point. I think that if Congress were so inclined, they might start pulling strings on which employment "qualifies" (as was done with those poor bastards at the ABA), but I don't think they're being that Machiavellian about it.

estefanchanning wrote:In the off chance that PROSPER passes, it must contain a grandfather provision, no? Detrimental reliance and all...

I guess my question is, can Congress bypass contract law and eliminate PSLF even for current enrollees?

Probably not. The terms and conditions of our loans contained PSLF.

Yeah, this is the key point. I think that if Congress were so inclined, they might start pulling strings on which employment "qualifies" (as was done with those poor bastards at the ABA), but I don't think they're being that Machiavellian about it.

The only bright line rules are government and 501(c)(3)s, if you work outside of those parameters (as our ABA friends did), you might be screwed.

Last edited by NCGuy on Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am applying this cycle and have gotten a few acceptances so far (CUNY, Lewis and Clark, UC Irvine). However, my numbers aren't so hot (3.6, 155) so I am expecting skinny FinAid. This whole time I was pinning my bets on PSLF and according to this article even if the PROSPER bill passes it will only affect those who take out loans after 2019. Is this true? Hence, I should probably matriculate at the best-ranked law school that grants me an acceptance this cycle (to ensure I am grandfathered)?

ri.co wrote:I am applying this cycle and have gotten a few acceptances so far (CUNY, Lewis and Clark, UC Irvine). However, my numbers aren't so hot (3.6, 155) so I am expecting skinny FinAid. This whole time I was pinning my bets on PSLF and according to this article even if the PROSPER bill passes it will only affect those who take out loans after 2019. Is this true? Hence, I should probably matriculate at the best-ranked law school that grants me an acceptance this cycle (to ensure I am grandfathered)?

ri.co wrote:I am applying this cycle and have gotten a few acceptances so far (CUNY, Lewis and Clark, UC Irvine). However, my numbers aren't so hot (3.6, 155) so I am expecting skinny FinAid. This whole time I was pinning my bets on PSLF and according to this article even if the PROSPER bill passes it will only affect those who take out loans after 2019. Is this true? Hence, I should probably matriculate at the best-ranked law school that grants me an acceptance this cycle (to ensure I am grandfathered)?

I would not expect being grandfathered in. The first people eligible under PLSF haven't even had their loans forgiven yet. Relying on PLSF going forward is a total risk.

This is the key part of the article I should have quoted:

Let's say you started borrowing for college prior to 2019. You could still receive a direct loan all the way through 2024, then enter public service, repay your loan for 10 years and still be eligible for forgiveness for the balance in 2034. If, however, you begin borrowing for college in 2019 or later, you would only be eligible for ONE loans and ineligible for PSLF.